In article <wVIbC.3044$at7.117@fx43.iad>,
moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/2018 11:56 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <45GbC.1718$Ia3.404@fx44.iad>,
> > moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/28/2018 6:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <pwsbC.537981$iX.302982@fx39.iad>,
> >>> moviePig<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>> Though I (fwiw) am neither upset, nor upset if the Left's upset, I'm
> >>>> curious to know which of this guy's ideas you find particularly absurd.
> >>>
> >>> Um... all of them?
> >>
> >> Then let's take two:
> >>
> >> "Instead of movies that objectify women, [I suggest] more films that
> >> portray sex and sexuality in intelligent ways."
> >>
> >> "[Most war-movies] model a cliched form of masculinity that veers
> >> from simplistic to monstrous."
> >>
> >> If each of those points is absurd, what's your alternative view?
> >
> > That they're neither simplistic nor monstrous and Hemsworth's looks are
> > hardly 'grievous'.
>
> So, I infer that you in fact *don't* contest the first quote (about
> objectifying women).
No, I'm just bored with that whole nonsense. Men are just as objectified
in movies.
> In the second quote, he actually called Hemsworth "grievously
> *handsome*", which seems entirely analogous to "awfully good-looking" or
> "terribly attractive". Moreover, in (non-Oscar) combat movies,
> 'simplistic cliched masculinity' seems a rather common trope.
Only if you go in with that mindset from the get-go. There was nothing
simplistic or cliched in AMERICAN SNIPER or ZERO DARK THIRTY, which this
preening ass lumped in with his whine about 12 STRONG.
> Point being that, while some of the Left-leaning loons you dig up and
> post here do occasionally illustrate a degree of entertaining lunacy, my
> sense is that you didn't bother to actually read this guy...
I read the entire thing. He's a lunatic who rises and sleeps under the
blanket of freedom the men and women he loathes provide, then questions
the manner in which they provide it.